Section 6(4) -This sub-section of the Bill seeks to abrogate the concept of pious

obligation. It states that the right to proceed against a son, grandson or greatgrandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or greatgrandfather on the ground of pious obligation will not be recognised by any court
after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2004.
Deliberation by the Committee on the issue of pious obligation26. The
Committee deliberated at length on the issue relating to 'pious obligation'. As per
the concept of a Hindu joint family under the Mitakshara school of law, it was
ordinarily joint not only in estate but in religious matters as well. According to
Mulla: Principles of Hindu Law (Vol II, page 277): "The law of heirship had close
connection with the doctrine - 'He who inherits the property, also offers the
pinda. It was based upon the principle of consanguinity." 27. During oral
evidence of the experts taken by the Committee, strong views emerged in the
context of continuation of the joint family system. It was reiterated that the
principle of 'pious obligation' is integral to the concept of joint family system and
the abrogation of one leads to the disintegration of the other. To quote the views
of the Committee from the proceeding of the meeting: "Once there is the
abolition of pious obligation, naturally there is no joint family at all....He (son) is
giving the pinda at a particular time; he is also clearing all the debts of the
family; he is managing the joint family and seeing to it that all his sisters are
married properly......he also sees to it that all his younger brothers are settled in
life properly.......If there is a debt incurred by the family, that debt would be
cleared by the joint family.......If you want the daughter to have certain rights in
the property, then she should also have certain liabilities." 28. Further, as per the
principles of 'pious obligation', the debts of a deceased coparcener will devolve
to his heirs in the coparcenary, i.e., his son, grandson and great grandson. The
rights of a creditor of the deceased would not be affected by his death. In this
context, it is pertinent to mention here that the Kerala Joint Family System
(Abolition) Act, 1975 abrogated the doctrine of pious obligation of the son.
However, the other four State Amendment Acts as mentioned before (generally
referred to as the Andhra model) which conferred coparcenary rights on
unmarried daughters are silent in this regard except that the daughter as a
coparcener is bound by the common liabilities and presumably can become a
karta in the joint family. View of the Law Commission 29. The Law Commission in
its Report, recommended a combination of the Andhra and Kerala models, the
synthesis of which, it was believed would be in keeping with justice, equity and
family harmony. Thus, it has been recommended to abrogate the doctrine of
pious obligation while making the daughter coparcener in the full sense.
Views/opinion as submitted to the Committee 30. On this issue, one of the
witnesses expressed opinion as given below: "Firstly, we feel that the religious
obligations and economic factors should be separated. The issue of pinda should
be separated from the issue of clearing debts. The issue of clearing debt is an
economic one, while the issue of pinda is a religious one." 31. Further, it was
stated: "......as far as pious obligation is concerned......If you want that daughters
to be given equal right as coparceners, then, there can be equal sharing of
economic burden. As far as pious obligation is concerned, daughters should also
have the right to give the pinda. They should not be deprived of religious rights.

If they are given all obligations, then they must also have the obligation of
economic burden." Additions/deletions/amendments as suggested by the
Committee 32. The Committee suggests that the word solely should be added
before the words on the ground of the pious obligation in line 37 of the Bill. The
Committee feels that the there may be other conditions for which the son may
be proceeded against in case of father's debt, for example, if he has got rights on
the estate of his father. So, insertion of the word solely will ensure that its only
the concept of pious obligation which has been abrogated as a condition to
proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson. General observation of the
Committee 33. The Committee would like to observe that the Hindu Undivided
Family system is a unique feature of the Indian society and the concept of pious
obligation acts as a thread which binds the family together and prevents it from
disintegration. Pious obligation includes both spiritual as well as material aspects
and makes the heir(s) responsible/liable for spiritual duties like performing the
last rites of the deceased, paying back debts accrued by the deceased and also
fulfilling other responsibilities left incomplete in respect of the joint family. Once
pious obligation is abrogated, the concept of joint family also suffers a blow.
However, at the same time the Committee is aware of the changing socioeconomic scenario of the day whereby nuclear families have become a viable
alternative in the context of urban India. Mobility of the population due to the
needs of the present day, such as for education and employment cannot be
overlooked. The Committee feels that the concept of joint family should also
evolve and shed off the features, which have become anachronistic. The concept
of joint family no longer involves joint residence. Similarly, the concept of pious
obligation whereby son, grandson and great grandson were responsible to fulfil
their responsibilities towards the joint family can be done away with. Instead, a
much more practical concept would be to make all primary heirs
liable/responsible to fulfil all such duties. The Committee feels that clause 6(1)(c)
which mentions that daughters who have been made coparceners will be subject
to the same liabilities in respect of said coparcenary property as that of a son
takes care of the concern of the Committee.